ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-2006 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 5417 - AMADOR Z. MALHABOUR v. ATTY. ALBERTI R. SARMIENTO

  • A.C. No. 5921 - JUDGE UBALDINO A. LACUROM v. ATTY. ELLIS F. JACOBA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 6155 - MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO v. ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P. PORTUGAL

  • A.C. No. 6160 - NESTOR PEREZ v. ATTY. DANILO DE LA TORRE

  • A.C. No. 6707 - GISELA HUYSSEN v. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ

  • A.C. No. 6705 - RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO v. ATTY. CARLOS B. SAGUCIO.

  • A.C. No. 6986 - JULIUS V. AGUSTIN v. ATTY. ENRIQUE S. EMPLEO

  • A.C. No. 7023 - BUN SIONG YAO v. ATTY. LEONARDO A. AURELIO

  • A.M. No. 06-2-43-MTC - RE: FINANCIAL AUDIT ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF MS. LAURA D. DELANTAR ETC.

  • A.M. No. 05-4-213-RTC - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT ETC.

  • A.M. No. 06-2-96-RTC - RE: ABSENCE WITHOUT OFFICIAL LEAVE OF MR. BASRI A. ABBAS ETC.

  • A.M. No. 2005-20-SC - RE: VIOLATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 14-2002 BY MR. GEMINIANO P. PEREZ

  • A.M. No. 2005-27-SC - RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF MS. CAROLYN C. ARCANGE

  • A.M. No. MTJ-04-1542 - ATTY. VICENTE B. DE ASIS v. JUDGE ARTURO G. DORONILA ETC.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-06-1626 - JULIANITO M. SALVADOR v. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., ETC.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-06-1630 - ESTRELLA A. BARBA v. JUDGE ROSITA B. SALAZAR, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1684 - PETER T. DONTON VS. EDGARDO S. LORIA ETC.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2050 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ATTY. MARTA T. CUNANAN

  • A.M. No. P-06-2131 - ROSALINDA PESONGCO v. ERNESTO B. ESTOYA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-06-2133 - RICARDO A. MANAYSAY v. PEPITO A. SAMANIEGO ETC.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1719 - ATTY. JOSE B. TIONGCO v. JUDGE ADRIANO S. SAVILLO ETC.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1966 - IMELDA S. ENRIQUEZ v. JUDGE ANACLETO L. CAMINADE

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1893 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. HON. MARIETTA A. LEGASPI ETC.

  • G.R. No. 126980 - SALLY V. BELLOSILLO v. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129247 & 136270 - SPS. ARSENIO AND NIEVES S. REYES v. SOLEMAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 129406 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460 - LUZ ARRIEGO v. JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 134473 - JUAN DE DIOS CARLOS v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133168 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BENJAMIN GUERRERO

  • G.R. No. 135350 - THE PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ETC. v. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135803 - O.B. JOVENIR CONSTRUCTION, ET AL. v. MACAMIR REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136388 - ANICIA RAMOS-ANDAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 139460 - KOREA EXCHANGE BANK v. HONORABLE ROGELIO C. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139676 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NORMA CUISON-MELGAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141371 - EDNA ABAD, ET AL. v. ROSELLE CINEMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141993 - NARCISA AVILA, ET AL. v. SPS. BENJAMIN BARABAT AND JOVITA BARABAT

  • G.R. No. 142509 - JOSE ALEMANIA BUATIS, JR. v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 142669 - PEZA, ETC. v. ABRAHAM B. BORRETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142830 - WILLIAM GOLANGCO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. 143027 - ENCARNACION L. CUIZON, ET AL. v. MERCEDES C. REMOTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145213 - JIMMY T. GO ETC. v. HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144449 - FRANCISCO T. JIMENEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145328 - EDUARDO F. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 145399 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), v. ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD (ERB), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145564 - CORAZON G. BUNTAG v. NIDA PANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146021 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. ELIZABETH G. SARMIENTO

  • G.R. No. 146550 - FELIPA DELFIN, ET AL. v. PRESENTACION D. BILLONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146744 - ROBERT G. DE GALICIA v. MELY MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 147011 - HEIRS OF SPS. EUGENIO NATONTON, ET AL. v. SPS. EULOGIO MAGAWAY ETC.

  • G.R. No. 147058 - DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC., v. HON. JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147143 - HYATT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORP., ET AL. v. LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147212 - THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, ETC. v. SALVADOR WEE

  • G.R. No. 147275 - VICENTE ONGKEKO v. BPI EXPRESS CARD CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 147902 - SPS. VICENTE YU AND DEMETRIA LEE-YU v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. 147970 - PCL INDUSTRIES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 148089 - JAIME M. BARRIOS, ET AL. v. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 149266 - BENJAMIN AND ROSENDA ESPINO v. CARMITA LEGARDA

  • G.R. No. 149145 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF KALIBO, AKLAN ETC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF BURUANGA, AKLAN ETC.

  • G.R. No. 149652 - EDUARDO L. BAXINELA v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 149840-41 - SPS. FRANCISCO AND RUBY REYES v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150175 - ERLINDA PILAPIL, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF MAXIMINO R. BRIONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150187 - CARMELITA GUANGA v. ARTEMIO DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150198 - DOMINADOR S. PEREZ v. THE MEDICAL CITY GENERAL HOSPITAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150866 - MANUEL MALLARI, ET AL. v. REBECCA ALSOL

  • G.R. No. 150926 - ANITA CHUA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 151098 - ERLINDA GAJUDO, ET AL. v. TRADERS ROYAL BANK

  • G.R. No. 152040 - MARIKINA AUTO LINE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152082 - RAMON R. OLBES, ET AL. v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 152616 - PHILEMPLOY SERVICES AND RESOURCES, INC. v. ANITA RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. 153817 - NOLITO D. SOLMAYOR, ET AL. v. ANTONIO L. ARROYO

  • G.R. No. 154101 - EJR CRAFTS CORPORATION v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155403 - HONORIO TORRES, JR. v. THE HONORABLE ANTONIO M. ESTEVES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155741 - BARTOLOME C. PELAYO v. AAREMA SHIPPING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 157171 - ARSENIA B. GARCIA v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155800 - LEONILO ANTONIO v. MARIE IVONNE F. REYES

  • G.R. No. 157557 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (CIVIL AERONAUTICS DMINISTRATION) v. RAMON YU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 157492 - NAPOCOR ETC. v. THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NPC), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 157877 - COMMISSIONER ON HIGHER EDUCATION v. ROSA F. MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 157882 - DIDIPIO EARTH-SAVERS' MULTI-PURPOSE ASSOCIATION, INC. ET AL. v. ELISEA GOZUN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 157954 - PAZ GALVEZ, ET AL. v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158763 - JOSE C. MIRANDA, ET AL. v. VIRGILIO M. TULIAO.

  • G.R. No. 159119 - ATTY. ANDREA UY v. AMALIA A. BUENO

  • G.R. No. 159938 - SHANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT, LTD., ET AL. v. DEVELOPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 160509 - MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. ZENAIDA G. SERRANO

  • G.R. No. 160854 - BIG AA MANUFACTURER v. EUTIQUIO ANTONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 161077 - SAMSON B. BEDRUZ, ET AL. v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ETC.

  • G.R. No. 161110 - PAL EMPLOYEES SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC. v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 161877 - ARIEL C. SANTOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162015 - THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY v. BAYAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.

  • G.R. No. 162045 - SPS. MARIO ONG AND MARIA CARMELITA ONG, ET AL. v. SPS. ERGELIA OLASIMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162064 - SONNY ZARRAGA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 162748-50 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162233 - RONALDO B. CASIMIRO, ET AL. v. STERN REAL ESTATE INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162957 - UNITED KIMBERLY-CLARK EMPLOYEES UNION ETC. v. KIMBERLY - CLARK PHILIPPINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 163400 - HILARIO P. SORIANO v. HON. CAESAR A. CASANOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163687 - GAUDENCIO VALERIO, ET AL. v. VICENTA REFRESCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163429 - JOHNNY JOSEFA v. LOURDES SAN BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163751 - ANECITO CALIMPONG, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF FILOMENA GUMELA ETC.

  • G.R. No. 163782 and G.R. NO. 163881 - METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 163986 - ROMULO A. DELES v. HON. PEPITO GELLADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164453 - JESUS CALDO v. VICTORIA CALDO-ATIENZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164518 and G.R. NO. 164965 - INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORPORATION, ET AL. v. VIRGILIO ABABON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164702 - PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA (PM), ET AL. v. THE HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164915 - ERIC JONATHAN YU v. CAROLINE T. YU

  • G.R. No. 165088 - POTENCIANO RAMIREZ v. MA. CECILIA RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 165501 - SPS. JESUS AND EVANGELINE PASCO v. PISON-ARCEO AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 165476 - AGRIPINO V. MOLINA v. PACIFIC PLANS, INC.

  • G.R. No. 165648 - EASTLAND CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. BENEDICTA MORTEL

  • G.R. No. 165545 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. TERESITA JARQUE VDA. DE BAILON

  • G.R. No. 165987 - JOSHUA S. ALFELOR, ET AL. v. JOSEFINA M. HALASAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166046 - MARGARITO C. SULIGUIN v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166116 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. FLORENTINA SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 166876 - ARTEMIO INIEGO v. THE HONORABLE JUDGE GUILLERMO G. PURGANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 167211 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE HABEAS CORPUS OF ATTY. FERNANDO ARGUELLES, JR., ET AL. v. MAJ. GEN. JOSE BALAJADIA, JR. ETC.

  • G.R. No. 166647 - PAG-ASA STEEL WORKS, INC. v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 167716 - PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK v. ELSIE ESCUDERO MANTAL

  • G.R. No. 167594 - MICHAEL F. PLANAS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 167979 - WILSON S. UY, ETC. v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 168809 - EDWARD ROCO TAN, ET AL. v. BENIGNO DE LA VEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 168877 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MICHAEL A. HONG

  • G.R. No. 169517 - ROGELIO A. TAN v. BENEDICTO M. BALAJADIA

  • G.R. No. 169632 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN EMPLOYEES' UNION-FFW (USAEU-FFW), ET AL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 170096 - RICARDO SANTOS, ET AL v. ILUMINADA CRUZ, ET AL.

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 150926 - ANITA CHUA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

      G.R. No. 150926 - ANITA CHUA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. NOS. 150926 and 30 : March 6, 2006]

    ANITA CHUA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.1

    D E C I S I O N

    CORONA, J.:

    This petition seeks to set aside the decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated November 22, 1999, affirming the decision of the trial court in People v. Anita Chua, docketed as CA-G.R. NOS. CR-14519 and CR-14520, finding petitioner guilty of violation of Article 315 (2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The decretal portion of the CA decision read:

    WHEREFORE, the appealed joint decision of conviction is AFFIRMED, with the modification that appellant ANITA CHUA is, for each of the two felonies of estafa, sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS, ELEVEN (11) MONTHS and TEN (10) DAYS of prision correccional, minimum term, to SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and TWENTY (20) DAYS of prision mayor, as maximum. All other aspects of the appealed decision stay. No cost.

    SO ORDERED.

    The facts, as found by the trial court and upheld by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:

    Private complainant Araceli Estigoy was engaged in (the) buy and sell of imported goods from 1982 to 1984 when she met appellant (Anita Chua) who transacted twice with her. On November 25, 1982, appellant issued to complainant in payment of imported (PX) items the following postdated checks drawn against Pacific Bank, Tarlac branch:

    Check No. Date Amount Exhibit
    41186 March 10, 1983 P6,500.00 "A"
    41187 March 14, 1983 P5,500.00 "B"
    41188 March 18, 1983 P6,200.00 "C"
    41189 March 22, 1983 P4,800.00 "D"
    41190 March 27, 1983 P5,973.93 "E"
    Total
    P28,673.93

    On December 4, 1982, appellant again went to complainant's house, purchased some imported items and issued to her the following postdated checks drawn against the same bank in Tarlac, to wit:

    Check No. Date Amount Exhibit
    91194 March 25, 1983 P3,000.00 "B"
    41196 April 2, 1983 P3,000.00 "B-1"
    41197 April 6, 1983 P4,500.00 "B-2"
    41198 April 9, 1983 P3,500.00 "B-3"
    41199 April 13, 1983 P3,800.00 "B-4"
    41120 April 16, 1983 P1,875.00 "B-5"
    48681 April 30, 1983 P2,500.00 "B-6"
    Total
    P22,175.00

    On their due dates, complainant deposited the checks in the bank but they were dishonored, as evidenced by the check return slips (Exhs. "C" to "C-6" in Crim. Case No. 107 and Exhs. "A-2" to "E-2" in Crim. Case No. 108) with annotations as follows: "drawn against insufficient funds" and/or "account closed" (Exhs. "C-1-A" to "C-6-A" in Crim. Case No. 107 and Exhs. "A-3" to "E-3" in Crim Case No. 108).

    Complainant notified appellant of the dishonor and demanded payment of the checks. Appellant failed to redeem or pay the amounts of the checks despite several demands (tsn, Oct. 16, 1984, p. 34, 39 to 40).

    Appellant admitted issuing the checks but interposed the defense that she issued the checks as collateral and by way of accommodation of the complainant who requested for the checks.3

    x x x

    On September 11, 1992, the trial court rendered the judgment of conviction:

    WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby finds the accused Anita Chua guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime as charged. In Criminal Case No. 107-C 83 accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years, eights (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor as maximum and to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of P22,175.00. In Criminal Case No. 108-C 83 accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor as maximum and to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of P28,673.00.

    The accused shall simultaneously serve the sentence imposed pursuant to Article 70 of the [RPC].

    SO ORDERED.4

    On appeal to the CA, appellant contended that her liability was purely civil because her transaction with private complainant merely involved an accounting and liquidation of civil obligations. The CA disagreed.

    The trial Court aptly ruled, and We sustain:

    "The Court rejects the defense set up by the accused that the checks were issued only as collateral and were issued upon request of the private complainant. xxx

    xxx the Court cannot believe that accused will issue checks without realizing her liability as a drawer. xxx A cursory examination of the amounts thereof will indicate these checks could not have been issued except as payment for goods received, as shown in the list of goods she received from the private complainant. One good example is Check No. 41190, in the amount of P5,973.93 (Exh. "E"). If this is an accommodation check, what is the significance of the P0.93 as appearing in the check?cralawlibrary

    Additionally, accused claims she paid in cash the goods she received from the private complainant and at the same time she also maintains that the checks she issued totaled P710,522.87, while the total price of the goods she received are (sic) only P458,819.95 less the checks given as collaterals amounting to P288,744.00, that is, she paid private complainant an excess of P37,071.08.

    x x x

    Such an admission is in conflict with her claim that she paid in cash the amount of the goods received and that the checks were issued only as collateral for if she maintains that the amount of her checks is even in excess of P71,502.92, it is inconceivable why in addition to the checks issued, she still paid in cash. xxx for if she paid in cash for the goods she obtained from the private complainant, it is hard to believe she did not ask for the return of her checks. Assuming, however, she issued postdated checks at the time she obtained the goods, upon payment of the goods, she could have stopped payment of the checks.5

    We affirm the CA decision upholding the judgment of conviction rendered by the court a quo, with a slight modification as to the penalty imposed.6

    Procedurally, the petition suffers from a fatal infirmity and must therefore be denied on this basis alone. Petitioner raises purely questions of fact:

    (1) that the trial court and the CA erred in not finding that there was no evidence of intent to defraud private complainant;

    (2) that complainant [did] not [suffer] from the act complained [of and]

    (3) that the transactions between the parties [were] purely civil in nature, i.e., they merely involved accounting and liquidation of civil obligations.7

    The legal aphorism is that the factual findings of the trial court, its evaluation of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight are given respect if not conclusive effect unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued, misunderstood or misinterpreted certain facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, will alter the outcome of the case.8 Here, we meticulously reviewed the records of the case and found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial court. Moreover, the CA affirmed these findings on appeal. It is well-settled that the factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal to us.9 The Court is not a trier of facts hence, as a rule, we do not weigh anew the evidence already passed on by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

    Now the merits of the case.

    Article 315 (2)(d) of the RPC penalizes any person who defrauds another by postdating a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender has no funds in the bank or his funds deposited therein are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check.10

    The elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the RPC, as amended by RA 4885, are:

    (1) that the offender postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance;

    (2) that the at the time of the issuance of the check, the offender had no funds in the bank or the funds deposited were insufficient to cover the amount of the check; and,ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

    (3) that the payee has been defrauded.11

    All the elements of the crime of estafa under par. 2(d) of Art. 315, RPC are present in this case. The evidence showed and petitioner Chua admitted issuing the questioned checks in favor of private respondent in exchange for the imported goods she obtained from the latter. It is likewise not disputed that the checks she issued bounced or were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds and/or because her bank account had already been closed by the bank due to lack of funds. As a result, private respondent suffered damage. She had to close down her business because she could not recoup her losses due to the huge amount petitioner owed her.

    Petitioner's defense that she issued the unfunded checks as collateral or security for the goods she got from private respondent was not worthy of credence. As correctly found by the trial court and affirmed by the CA, the amounts of the checks issued by petitioner clearly showed that they were intended as payments for the items she obtained from private respondent. Private respondent would not have parted with her goods in exchange for bum checks. It was likewise contrary to ordinary human experience and to sound business practice for petitioner to issue so many unfunded checks as "collateral" or "by way of accommodation." As an experienced businesswoman, petitioner could not have been so naïve as not to know that she could be held criminally liable for issuing unfunded checks.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

    Costs against petitioner.

    SO ORDERED.

    Endnotes:


    1 The Court of Appeals was impleaded as a party. However, we have excluded it since this is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

    2 Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now Presiding Justice) and concurred in by then Acting Presiding Justice Jainal D. Rasul and Associate Justice Eloy R. Bello, Jr. of the First Division of the Court of Appeals, rollo, pp. 45-60.

    3 CA Decision, rollo, pp. 47-49.

    4 Penned by Judge Josefina D. Ceballos, Branch 66 of Capas, Tarlac RTC; records, pp. 89-101.

    5 Rollo, pp. 57-58.

    6 The CA decision modified the decision of the trial court by deleting from each imposition of indeterminate penalty the excess of one day in both the minimum and maximum terms there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance. The reduction of the penalty is more favorable to appellant.

    7 Assignment of Errors, Petition, p. 11.

    8 People v. Cajurao, G.R. No. 122767, 20 January 2004, 420 SCRA 207.

    9 Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112550, 5 February 2001, 351 SCRA 145; International Corporate Bank v. Gueco, G.R. No. 141968, 12 February 2001, 351 SCRA 516; Bordalba v. Court of Appeals, 425 Phil. 407 (2002).

    10 People v. Tan, 392 Phil. 877 (2000).

    11 People v. Gulion, G.R. No. 141183, 18 January 2001, 349 SCRA 610; People v. Flores, 426 Phil. 187 (2002).

    G.R. No. 150926 - ANITA CHUA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED